UPS to End Health Insurance Coverage for Spouses of Some Employees

DALLAS (AP) -- United Parcel Service plans to drop health-insurance benefits for working spouses of nonunion employees if they can get coverage elsewhere. It blames the change partly on the new health care law.

UPSestimates that 15,000 of the 33,000 spouses it covers will be dropped. The change is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1 for spouses of U.S. employees.

The worldwide parcel-delivery company says it's just going with the crowd.UPScited a benefits consultant's survey that found more companies are planning on restricting benefits for working spouses.

UPSsaid it was making the change because of rising health care costs and the 2010 law championed by President Barack Obama. The company said that it considered letting employees pay extra to cover their working spouses but decided that would be difficult to do.

"Since the Affordable Care Act requires employers to provide affordable coverage, we believe your spouse should be covered by their own employer -- just asUPShas a responsibility to offer coverage to you," the company said in a memo to employees.

According to benefits consultant Mercer LLC, relatively few large companies exclude coverage for spouses who have the option of other employer coverage.

Mercer said that in 2012, just 6% of companies with 500 or more employees excluded such spouses, although that was double the percentage in 2008. It said another 6% levied a surcharge to cover those spouses.

"Employers are thinking about it because (health insurance) costs are continuing to go up," said Mercer partner Joan Smyth. "They're trying to walk a fine line between being fair to their employees but also being fiscally responsible."

Smyth said employers are waiting to see whether spouses can find coverage from public insurance exchanges to be created under the health law. Other provisions of the law, such as a per-participant fee to subsidize premiums for high-cost people in the individual-policy market, encourage employers to reduce the number of people they cover, she said.

Paul Fronstin, a senior research associate at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, said that the percentage of employers booting working spouses off plans is still small; it's more common to simply add a surcharge for insuring them.

"But trends start with small numbers," he said. "There's a herd mentality. When you have a big employer likeUPSdo this, it's easier for other employers to do the same thing."

In explaining the change to employees,UPScited a survey by consultant Towers Watson. That firm surveyed 583 employers and reported growing interest in reducing coverage for working spouses. It said 4% already exclude spouses who can get coverage through their own employer and another 8% plan that in 2014. Many more -- 20% now and rising to 33% next year -- impose a surcharge for covering that same working spouse.

Andy McGowan, aUPSspokesman, said the change was part of the company's effort to keep health-insurance premiums at or below current levels for a "significant" number of employees. He said the company's premiums have risen sharply in recent years.

UPStold employees that spouses will no longer be eligible for physical and mental health benefits and prescription-drug coverage. "However, you may enroll her in dental, vision and supplemental benefits such as life insurance" even if the spouse's employer provides those,UPStold workers. It added that spouses eligible for Medicare won't be excluded from coverage.

The change also won't affectUPS' union workers, many of them represented by the Teamsters. Their health benefits are spelled out in labor contracts.

The new policy will produce one benefit for the nonunion employees: Those whose spouses lose UPScoverage will see their share of their insurance decline. The company said it could be almost $1,600 for some workers.

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

What I found provides insight into this action and leads one to believe this has much less to do with 'cost' than it does with the CEO's, D. Scott Davis, political affiliations.

Since D. Scott Davis has joined UPS, serving as CFO and CEO, UPS has given up to 80% of it's political contributions to the GOP party. Not surprisingly, we also find that when compared to its major competitor, FedEx, FedEx has consistently outperformed UPS in the stock market. It seems to me D. Scott Davis political leanings and management is more responsible for his position on healthcare for employees than anything else.

Ironically, in opening remarks, Davis gave in 2011 at the UPS Healthcare Forum he stated "The Affordable Care Act improved access to healthcare, which is important, but didn't do enough to address cost and quality. The hope was that this legislation would provide greater certainty, but there is as much uncertainty in healthcare as ever."

Ultimately this may be a zero sum effect. They will cut coverage of some spouses of employees but gain coverage of some employees who were covered previously at other companies under their spouses....as long as the other companies act similarly. No one seems to mention this.

Unemployed housewife - Non employed spouses stay on their plan. get insurance thru the new state exchanges - the employed spouse can pay for it and may even get a subsidy to help pay for it.

This news is NO BIG DEAL. If a spouse has coverage at her employer, she should take that or go to the exchange. What the UPS employee saves may pay for the exchange plan premium. I think UPS is doing good by allowing working spouses to stay on their dental plan.

I love how the left-wing apologists always blame companies for the actions they have to take because of political decisions made by people who don't understand business or capitalism. The bottom line is the pols need to stay out of private business.